ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022
Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite proven scientific quality of menstrual blood mesenchymal cells, research and science output using those cells is still incipient, which suggests there is a resistance to the study of this type of cell by scientists, and a lack of attention to its potential for cell therapy, regenerative medicine and bioengineering. This study analyzes the literature about the menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (mbMSC) on the PubMed database between 2008-2020 and the social attention it received on Twitter. A comparative analysis showed that mbMSC accounts for a very small portion of mesenchymal cell research (0.25%). Most first authors are women (53.2%), whereas most last authors are men (63.74%), reinforcing an already known, and still significant, gender gap between last and corresponding authors. Menstrual blood tends to be less used in experiments and its scientific value tends to be underestimated, which brings gender bias to a technical and molecular level. Although women are more positive in the mbMSC debate on Twitter, communication efforts toward visibility and public interest in menstrual cells has room to grow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.